I agree that it is a fight worth fighting. NAI offends me less than the Gulf Operators which are propped up by governments, thus negating, to a degree, the need to run as a profitable business. NAI is a business and is subject to market forces and there is no government to prop them up if they hit hard times. They could easily go the way of PanAm.

However, it is important to fight as an informed body. We know what the result of arbitration would be. As a result, what is our backup plan? If it were up to me, my backup plan would be a strengthening of the domestic networks and shrinking of the regional airline industry. Look what has happened while the major carriers have ignored domestic routes. Southwest became the largest volume domestic carrier, Spirit, Frontier, Virgin America, JetBlue all have come into a space that the major carriers have ceded to them.

The United States is a geographically vast country which necessitates domestic air travel, which is easiest to protect from foreign competition (cabotage). Long ago I planned to fly at a 121 operator. If that were still my mindset, I would be looking at Southwest above any legacy carrier. They are most insulated from foreign competition.

Now, look at the legacy carriers. They are making record profits. Instead of reinvesting those profits in the company (New Aircraft, Infrastructure Improvements, etc.) they are rewarding their shareholders (a short-term reward) with a share buyback (Delta Airlines alone is spending 5 billion to buy back shares). Now, this is great news if you own shares of Delta. However, if you are employed by Delta (just using Delta as an example) you may be asking "Why do I care what Delta's STOCK price is?" Would you rather have a company that is better positioned to compete on a global level going forward or would you rather have the stock price end the 4th quarter up an additional 3%?

Dividends and stock repurchase programs do not help your carrier compete globally. Capital expenditures do.

The use of Maritime analogies are interesting. Again I'd ask individuals to read about the Jones Act, which was designed to be a protectionist policy that has had little positive effect on the domestic maritime industry.

Rather than flinging arguments about Clinton and/or Trump back and forth lets learn some facts and lets come up with actionable plans. Again, I admire the fight to keep out NAI. Keeping them out as long as possible will be a benefit to our industry. Please understand that it is not a long term solution as it is an inevitability that operators like NAI will continue to come to the United States so long as markets exist to support them. That is the "problem" with living in a free-market capitalistic society. However, with the alternative being something like Aeroflot, I think I'm happy to be here.